Mullarkey Majority

The Colorado Car Tax (er, “fee”) increase – ironically dubbed ‘FASTER’ – passed in the 2009 legislative session made another lap in media coverage this past week with a broadcast on the ‘Devil’s Advocate‘ television program and publication of a pair of “Issue Backgrounder” papers.

However, both papers together only tell half of the story (almost literally). The ‘Colorado Bridge Enterprise’ is only one of two new ‘government-owed businesses’ established by the FASTER legislation (the other being the ‘Colorado Transportation Enterprise’ charged with collecting and spending the ‘road safety surcharge’ tax – er, “fee”) . Both “enterprises” are overseen by an 11-member appointed (ergo, unaccountable to the public) board (coincidentally, the same 11 people who make up the Colorado Transportation Commission). Significantly (although unfortunately unremarked in both papers), both ‘enterprises’ are also authorized to use eminent domain to seize private property.

The television broadcast is informative and entertaining as well, but unfortunately also misses significant parts of the story.

Also unremarked in both papers – and on the television broadcast as well – is the fact that FASTER actually comprises multiple tax increases (er, “fees”) in a single piece of legislation, blatantly violating the constitutional requirements to “receive voter approval in advance” for “any new tax, mill levy above that for the prior year, valuation for assessment ratio increase for a property class, or extension of an expiring tax, or a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.” (Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20 – the ‘Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights’). The “bridge fund fee” and the “road safety surcharge fee” increase each year for three years (yep, that’s 3 tax increases in one!), in addition to imposing an entirely separate “fee” on car rentals as well. Oh, and don’t forget the “late fees” too…

But all of this is necessary “to preserve our crumbling transportation infrastructure,” right? That was the justification for passing the bill – along with claims that any and all “fees” collected “shall be used exclusively for the construction, maintenance, and supervision of the public highways of the state.” Says so right in the legislative language (43-4-810), so it must be true, correct?

Not so much. The dirty little secret of the FASTER bill is that many of the taxes (er, “fees”) collected don’t go towards the construction or maintenance of roads or bridges at all, but for “multi-modal and demand-side transportation solutions” – such as the desire of certain state Senators for streetcars in Denver – justified by other language in a following section (43-4-812):

43-4-812. Use of user fees for transit – legislative declaration.(2) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES THAT THE FUNDING OF TRANSIT-RELATED PROJECTS AUTHORIZED BY SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION CONSTITUTES MAINTENANCE AND SUPERVISION OF STATE HIGHWAYS BECAUSE IT WILL HELP TO REDUCE TRAFFIC ON STATE HIGHWAYS AND THEREBY REDUCE WEAR AND TEAR ON STATE HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES AND INCREASE THEIR RELIABILITY, SAFETY, AND EXPECTED USEFUL LIFE.

In fact, the bill MANDATES state spending of $10 Million per year on “transit-related projects.”

It’s an outrageous semantic shell game – and a blatant violation of your constitutional rights.

To sum up: the “FASTER” car tax increase raised vehicle registration fees by $22.50-55 per vehicle, including a “road safety surcharge fee” of $16-$39 per vehicle, PLUS a “bridge fund fee” of $13-$32 per vehicle (phased in at 50%/75%/100% each of the first 3 years ). Plus mandatory “late fees” of $25/month (capped at $100) – for all “vehicles” (including trailers barely even worth that much).

All while creating two new ‘government-owned’ bureaucracies with power to spend, borrow, & seize private property unconstrained by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and not accountable to the people.

Oh, and increasing mandatory spending by over $10 Million per year on purposes otherthan roads, bridges, or other transportation infrastructure used by those paying the “fees.”

Unfortunately, these politicians in black robes remain ‘at large’ and able to continue to assault your constitutional rights for years to come.

Clear The Bench Coloradowill, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts. We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone – we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

The “Dirty Dozen” was the name given to a package of twelve legislative bills which sought to increase tax revenues by eliminating existing tax credits or exemptions – an end-run around the constitutional requirement (in Article X, Section 20 – colloquially known as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR) for “voter approval in advance for… any new tax, tax rate increase, or… tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.”

Last year’s legislative majorities (Democrats dominated both chambers of the state General Assembly) were emboldened in their assault on the constitutional rights (and wallets) of Colorado citizens by an interpretation of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in the notorious “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case (another unconstitutional tax increase, sanctioned by the court under the pretense that a rate “freeze” which collects more revenue doesn’t count as a tax increase for triggering that pesky constitutional requirement to receive “voter approval in advance”). Solid legislative majorities, a compliant governor, and a complicit supreme court allowed them to take a bigger bite of your money without first (or ever) asking for permission.

Repealing last year’s (unconstitutional) agricultural tax increase is a win both for the rule of law and Colorado consumers – since the tax indirectly raised the price of all food grown, raised, or otherwise produced in Colorado. Noticed your grocery bill creeping up? Last year’s tax increase is partially to blame; projected revenue gains of $1.5M have not been realized, while higher food costs are shifted to consumers.

Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts. We will continue to work with legislators and others interested in reforming the systemic shortcomings of Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system to increase transparency and accountability to the public, and to provide useful evaluations of judicial performance.

However, we can’t do it alone – we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

Two Republican lawmakers introduced a bill today that would impose a 10-cent fee on every movie ticket sold in the state, beginning July 1, to help fund an incentive program for promoting film production in Colorado.

The mania to circumvent the Colorado Constitution and avoid seeking voter approval of tax increases by calling them “fees” is apparently not an affliction restricted to the Democrat party alone. Leaving aside the policy implications of picking industry favorites for government support and subsidies (“corporate welfare”) at taxpayer expense, the proposed new “fee” is clearly a tax – since those paying derive no benefit (receiving neither good nor service) from the payment – and therefore subject to prior approval by a vote of the people (Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20 – the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights).

It is not uncommon for lawmakers to propose measures involving fee increases in lieu of tax hikes, which require voter approval under provisions of TABOR, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

Legislators of both parties swear an oath to ‘support and uphold’ the Constitution – which includes that pesky Article X, Section 20. Like the executive and (especially) judicial branches, they don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to support or ignore without violating their oath of office. Republicans should be especially sensitive of this oath – and of the constitutional requirements and restrictions imposed by TABOR – because they made constitutionality (or lack thereof) the centerpiece of their (principled) opposition to last year’s “Dirty Dozen” tax increases (many of which they are now attempting to repeal).

To avoid the taint of hypocrisy, Republican party and legislative leaders should call on the bill’s sponsors to withdraw the proposed legislation. Otherwise, the GOP may find itself on shaky moral ground when (justifiably) calling for the repeal of last year’s “Dirty Dozen” tax increases – and set itself up for near-permanent minority status as the energized grassroots electorate turns away in disgust at the party’s perceived lack of principle.

“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” – Mark Twain (1866)

As another legislative session begins, the Colorado General Assembly once again faces a hefty budget shortfall; the projected gap between expected revenue and planned spending is $1.2B (yes, that’s $1,200,000,000) this fiscal year. Last year at this time, the projected revenue shortfall was a mere $660M (about half of this year’s shortfall) which the legislature “fixed” with a combination of one-time subsidies, funds transfers and raids, other budgetary gimmicks – and the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases.

The “Dirty Dozen” was the name given to a package of twelve legislative bills which sought to increase tax revenues collected by eliminating existing tax credits or exemptions – an end-run around the constitutional requirement (in Article X, Section 20 – colloquially known as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR) requiring “voter approval in advance for… any new tax, tax rate increase, or… tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.”

Last year’s legislative majorities (Democrats dominated both chambers of the Colorado General Assembly) were emboldened in their assault on the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens (and the grab into their wallets) by an interpretation of the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in the notorious “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case (another unconstitutional tax increase, sanctioned by the court under the pretense that a rate “freeze” which collects more revenue doesn’t count as a tax increase for triggering that pesky constitutional requirement to receive “voter approval in advance”). Solid legislative majorities, a compliant governor, and a complicit supreme court allowed them to take a bigger bite of your money without first (or ever) asking for permission.

Since the 2010 elections resulted in a shift of control of one legislative chamber (the state House of Representatives) and many members of the new majority campaigned on a promise to seek the repeal of these unconstitutional tax increases, it’s worth re-visiting the “Dirty Dozen” tax laws to provide an overview of what’s at stake.

Originally, twelve bills were introduced to repeal a total of thirteen existing tax credits or exemptions; one of the bills was not passed, resulting in eleven bills increasing twelve taxes (either way, the term “Dirty Dozen” remains an appropriate and accurate description).

In order of introduction, the bills were:

HB10-1189, Eliminate Sales Tax Exemption for Direct Mail (Pommer/Heath), signed 2/24/10. This bill increased the sales tax on direct mail advertising, impacting both the actual advertising companies and the predominantly small-business market (especially local small businesses) that rely on direct-mail advertising as a cost-effective and less expensive alternative to radio/TV ads. This tax increase was projected to raise $1.5M, but has actually generated less revenue.

HB10-1190, Suspend Industrial Fuel Sales & Use Tax Exemption (Pommer/Heath), signed 2/24/10. Also known as the “Energy Tax”, this bill effectively raised the cost of every product and service produced in Colorado (since every business using energy – i.e. all businesses – now must pay a higher price for energy, directly or indirectly, sometimes both – used ‘on the job.’) This new tax hits manufacturing industries, already pinched by increasing fuel prices, especially hard; the state’s largest manufacturing industry (Pueblo’s Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel) expected to pay $2M/yr in additional costs. Projected state revenue gains of $48M have not been realized.

HB10-1191, Eliminate Candy & Soda Sales Tax Exemption (Pommer/Heath), signed 2/24/10. The notoriously capricious Candy Tax not only angered Colorado kids, it also burdened stores with checking ingredients for each item to see if it was subject to taxation. (Ironically, some “energy bars” are considered “candy” while “Twix” or “KitKat” bars are not, based on the ingredient list). Again, small businesses were disproportionately impacted and, predictably, revenue projections of $17.9M have not been achieved.

HB10-1192, Sales & Use Tax of Standardized Software (Pommer/Heath), signed 2/24/10. Software downloads – particularly upgrades or updates to previously purchased programs such as antivirus or antispam software – were most impacted; previously, direct online purchases were not taxed. Projected revenue gains of $15M have not been realized.

HB10-1193, Sales Tax Out-of-State Retailers (Pommer/Heath), signed 2/24/10. Also known as the Amazon Tax, this tax increase prompted Amazon.com to terminate its local affiliate program (reducing income for some 5,000 Coloradans) and led to a (predicted) court challenge, since the bill sought to collect personal purchase data from online retailers (violating the 4th Amendment). Taxpayers are funding the state’s defense (filed in Federal court, due to lack of confidence in Colorado courts) and needless to say, the projected $5M revenue has not been achieved.

HB10-1194, Eliminate Nonessential Articles Sales Tax Exemption (Ferrandino/Heath), signed 2/24/10. Otherwise known as the Doggy Bag Tax – since legislators consider take-home food containers “non-essential” items for restaurants and thus subject to higher taxes (raising the cost of dining out, since the restaurants have to factor the increased cost into their prices).

The preceding list was a short summary of the “Dirty Dozen” tax bills; space precludes more detail, but interested readers can learn more at http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/ (search on keywords “Dirty Dozen”, “Amazon Tax”, “Candy Tax”, “Doggy Bag Tax” and others).

Matt Arnold is currently the executive director and primary spokesman for the grassroots effort to restore accountability to Colorado’s judiciary, Clear The Bench Colorado. Matt launched the effort following the Colorado Supreme Court’s violation of the Colorado Constitution, citizen’s rights under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), and their duty to uphold the rule of law in the infamous “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case. Since April 2009, Matt has tirelessly sought to educate Colorado voters of their right to demand accountability of our Supreme Court justices in the November 2010 retention elections, which (although falling short of removing the three anti-constitutional incumbents on the ballot, achieved the highest percentage of “NO” votes for sitting “Supremes” in the history of the state- on a shoestring budget and no organized support).

plaintiff Clear the Bench Colorado (CTBC) has won some key battles in its effort to prove that a consortium of groups behind the Know Your Judge website constituted a political committee that failed to comply with laws governing spending and electioneering.

Last week, an administrative law judge denied a motion by Know Your Judge to quash CTBC’s subpoenas and another motion seeking a protective order limiting the amount of discovery in the case.

The victory is all the more remarkable because the case against the “Know Your Judge” consortium is being argued by a non-attorney: CTBC’s citizen-soldier Director Matt Arnold. Despite a litany of legal maneuvering and a barrage of legal briefs filed by the high-powered (and highly-paid) attorneys representing the legal-establishment special-interest groups making up the “Know Your Judge” Campaign, it was CTBC’s clear, concise reasoning that won the day:

Know Your Judge, which is represented by a team of lawyers – including former Speaker of the House Terrance Carroll – said in its motion to quash that the subpoenas were irrelevant, unreasonable and overly broad.

CTBC’s Response Brief demonstrated otherwise, laying out the grounds for requested discovery (getting the facts, which KYJ’s defense attorneys attempted to suppress) and the judge agreed:

Judge Judith Schulman was unconvinced by Know Your Judge’s motions, writing that “intent clearly is a relevant factor in establishing the elements of CTBC’s claim that Respondents constituted a political committee.” She also denied the defendants motion for a protective order, noting they’d failed to show that the records requested under subpoena contained any “privileged or private information that requires special protection.”

Although the legal game is far from over, at the end of the first period of play, so far it’s Underdog: 2, Big Bad Lawyers: 0

The matter is currently scheduled for a hearing Feb. 23. If the complaint is upheld, the defendants can be levied fines of $50 per day for late reporting, plus two to five times the amount of contributions. The latter fine would equal between $170,000 and $425,000.

Newly appointed Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Bender (who was retained in office by the most narrow margin in Colorado history for an incumbent state supreme court justice along with his colleague, and ideological ally, Alex Martinez) delivered his first “State of the Judiciary” address before a joint session of the Colorado General Assembly on Friday, 11 January.

Unsurprisingly, Chief Justice Bender painted a rosy (and self-serving) picture of the state of Colorado’s judicial branch, touting the successes of some specialty courts (a veterans’ court in El Paso County, and a truancy court in Pueblo County) along with some personnel and administrative efficiencies achieved statewide. Bender even went so far as to claim credit for the judiciary having “helped balance the state budget” through various cost-cutting measures, and went on to claim that Colorado “continues to lead the nation in court technology applications” such as a new “statewide e-filing system for all cases” designed to increase efficiency and “yield additional revenue.” (Since when is “yielding additional revenue” a function of the courts?) Oh, and speaking of revenue – he was able to get in a plug for the new $258M judicial complex financed by a combination of debt (er, “not-debt”) and new “fees.”

Although the listed accomplishments are laudable achievements, they amount to somewhat superficial marginalia – not quite as trivial as tinkering with the deck chairs on the Titanic, but rather missing the point on the primary function of the courts: upholding the rule of law.

A more accurate assessment of the actual state of Colorado’s judiciary in that regard was contained in the American Tort Reform Association’s annual “Judicial Hellholes” report for 2010, released just last month. The report lists Colorado as one of only three state supreme courts nationwide to qualify for the dubious “honor” of being declared a “judicial hellhole” (Colorado joins Michigan and perennial favorite West Virginia in being so recognized).

“Traditionally, Judicial Hellholes have been considered places where civil judges systematically apply laws and court procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, generally against defendants in civil lawsuits,” explains ATRA general counsel Victor Schwartz. “The jurisdictions we name as Judicial Hellholes each year are not the only unfair courts in the nation, but they are among the most unfair, based on our survey of litigants and considerable independent research.”

Actions speak louder than words; and although Bender’s speech gives lip service to the primacy of the rule of law, his actions on the bench have demonstrated the opposite. Indeed, Bender has been one of the most egregious perpetrators of putting personal views (his own) above the letter of the law.

The hypocrisy is stunning. Justice Bender opened his remarks with reference to our 2nd President:

As John Adams, one of our founding fathers, said we are a government of laws, not men.

“. . . that a form of government which unites all virtue . . . in a reverence and obedience to the laws, is the only one in which liberty can be secure, and all orders and ranks compelled to prefer the public good before their own; that is the government for which we plead.”

Adams’ point rings true today — to have a government that secures liberty and freedom, all branches of the government must be obedient to the law.

Yes, Justice Bender; ALL branches of the government.

To paraphrase another great president, “I knew John Adams… John Adams is my great-great-great-something grandfather [Ed. on my mother's side; true fact] and you’re no John Adams.”

Have you no shame, sir?

Such contrast between rhetoric and reality; the true “State of the Judiciary” in Colorado.

One more example of how the Colorado Supreme Court has aided and abetted another unconstitutional assault on your wallet was recently highlighted in an informative article by Face The State‘s Peter Blake, “One used-tire fee drives another” (the article also appeared in the Denver Daily News). The article traces the mutation of the “used-tire fee” from it’s original purpose of collecting funds to offset the cost of recycling used tires to become just another slush fund for special interests:

The used-tire fee has been something of a fiasco for years. It started as a $1 fee (not payable if you took your tires home) in 1993 but even at the beginning, the proceeds were used more for other recycling projects than for tire disposal. Inevitably, other interest groups with no connection to tires also horned in on the booty, even higher education.

Such transformation of a “use fee” (tied to consumption of, or access to, a particular good or service) to other purposes makes it a tax – and, since it continues to be collected (now for different purposes than the original basis for the “fee” – qualifying as a tax policy change under the Colorado Constitution’s Article X, Section 20) an unconstitutional taking and an assault on your wallet.

First, the state recycling fee is no longer tied to your surrendering your old tires. Thanks to a bill passed in 2009, the $1.50 is now charged on each new tire you buy. You have to pay even if you take your old tires home and hang them in the backyard to swing on or throw footballs through. That would seem to make it not a fee at all but an increase in the sales tax-an unconstitutional one, since it wasn’t approved by the voters. But it’s never been challenged because everybody knows the Colorado Supreme Court, which hates TABOR and doesn’t care how the legislature raises money, would reject the argument.

The Colorado legislature – aided and abetted by the Colorado Supreme Court – has been operating outside the law. The Colorado Constitution enshrines the right of the citizenry to have a say in how much of their hard-earned money can be taken from them; we have the right to vote on tax increases, by whatever name (and yes, that includes taxes masquerading as “fees”). However creatively defined – if it looks like a tax, and quacks like a tax – it’s a tax, and you have the right to have your say at the ballot box before any new tax or tax increase goes into effect.

The Constitution of the United States begins with the words “We the people.” But neither the Constitution nor “we the people” will mean anything if politicians and judges can continue to do end runs around both.

So begins a superb article by esteemed economist and commentator Thomas Sowell, published Tuesday (“Political End Runs“).

Sowell states the case as eloquently as I have seen about the need for citizens to hold not only their elected officials, but also unelected bureaucrats and judges accountable – to constitutional limits specifically and the rule of law in general.

Sowell’s piece begins with an expose of how bureaucrats in the Medicare office are quietly implementing rules for the healthcare “reform” legislation that were explicitly rejected by Congress (during debate – such as it was – on the same legislation). As many critics pointed out at the time, the healthcare law ceded extraordinary power and authority to unelected bureaucrats to make up implementing rules as they went along.

The article quickly proceeds to a much more wide-reaching (and dangerous) trend in “political end runs” – judicial usurpation:

It is not only members of Congress or the administration who treat “we the people” and the Constitution as nuisances to do an end run around. Judges, including justices of the Supreme Court, have been doing this increasingly over the past hundred years.

Naturally, Sowell’s focus is at the Federal level – but the problem he articulates is very much a threat at the state level:

Professor Roscoe Pound likewise referred to the need for “a living constitution by judicial interpretation,” in order to “respond to the vital needs of present-day life.” He rejected the idea of law as “a body of rules.”

But if law is not a body of rules, what is it? A set of arbitrary fiats by judges, imposing their own vision of “the needs of the times”?

This is, unfortunately, indicative of the mindset which dominates our would-be “ruling class”:

In other words, judges were encouraged to do an end run around rules, such as those set forth in the Constitution, and around the elected representatives of “we the people.” As Roscoe Pound put it, law should be “in the hands of a progressive and enlightened caste whose conceptions are in advance of the public.”

Sowell’s solution?

Unsurprisingly, the same solution advocated by Clear The Bench Colorado: accountability.

The Constitution cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution, by voting out those who promote end runs around it.

A superb article that should have been written (and widely disseminated) three or more months ago.

Although Colorado voters lost an opportunity (and a battle) this last November, the fight for judicial accountability continues. For those of us who would like to see Colorado’s judiciary reformed and returned to a proper role of upholding the Constitution and individual rights, we would appreciate your continued support – your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions are still needed.Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.

The American Tort Reform Association’s annual “Judicial Hellholes” report for 2010 lists Colorado as one of only three state supreme courts nationwide to qualify for the “honor” (Colorado joins Michigan and perennial favorite West Virginia in being so recognized).

“Traditionally, Judicial Hellholes have been considered places where civil judges systematically apply laws and court procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, generally against defendants in civil lawsuits,” explains ATRA general counsel Victor Schwartz. “The jurisdictions we name as Judicial Hellholes each year are not the only unfair courts in the nation, but they are among the most unfair, based on our survey of litigants and considerable independent research.”

For those of us who would like to see Colorado’s judiciary reformed and recognized for upholding the Constitution and individual rights, we would appreciate your continued support – your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions are still needed.

Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.